Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.95
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.110 (2026)

Parole

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The board may permit an offender convicted of a crime committed before July 1, 1984, to leave the buildings and enclosures of a state correctional institution on parole, after such convicted person has served the period of confinement fixed for him or her by the board, less time credits for good behavior and diligence in work: PROVIDED, That in no case shall an inmate be credited with more than one-third of his or her sentence as fixed by the board.
The board may establish rules and regulations under which an offender may be allowed to leave the confines of a state correctional institution on parole, and may return such person to the confines of the institution from which he or she was paroled, at its discretion.
(2) The board may permit an offender convicted of a crime committed on or after September 1, 2001, and sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507, to leave a state correctional institution on community custody according to the provisions of RCW 9.94A.507, 9.94A.704, 72.09.335, and 9.95.420 through 9.95.440. The person may be returned to the institution following a violation of his or her conditions of release to community custody pursuant to the hearing provisions of RCW 9.95.435.
[ 2009 c 28 s 26; 2008 c 231 s 42; 2003 c 218 s 7; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 331; 1999 c 143 s 21; 1955 c 133 s 12. Prior: 1939 c 142 s 1, part; 1935 c 114 s 4, part; RRS s 10249-4, part.]

Notes:

Effective date—2009 c 28: See note following RCW 2.24.040.
Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Intent—Severability—Effective dates—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250.
Application—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 ss 301-363: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: State v. Fain, 617 P.2d 720 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fain, 617 P.2d 720 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 6× “Under Washington's present statutory scheme, the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles cannot establish a habitual offender's minimum sentence at less than 15 years and may fix it at life. RCW 9.95.040(3).”
In the Matter of Pers. Restraint of Powell, 814 P.2d 635 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “*211 Because I find SHB 1457 is ex post facto, I do not find it necessary to consider the equal protection and due process arguments.”
State v. Scott, 416 P.3d 1182 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d at 393 (citing RCW 9.95.110, .070). This court rejected the State's distinction because "[i]t is clear to us that'parole is simply an act ofexecutive grace.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Piercy, 681 P.2d 223 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “tory, or other state correctional institution, commits any infractions of the rules and regulations of the institution, the board of prison terms and paroles may revoke any order theretofore made determining the length of time such convicted person shall be imprisoned, including…”
State v. Witherspoon, 329 P.3d 888 (Wash. 2014). “2d at 393 (citing RCW 9.95.110, .070). We declined this invitation on the ground that a prisoner “has no right to parole, which is merely a privilege granted by [an] administrative body.”
Jansen v. Morris, 551 P.2d 743 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.110. Thus, the petitioner's 20 years less one-third good time sentence requires him to serve at least a 13-year, 4-month sentence.”
Arment v. Henry, 658 P.2d 663 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “tory, or other state correctional institution, commits any infractions of the rules and regulations of the institution, the board of prison terms and paroles may revoke any order theretofore made determining the length of time such convicted person shall be imprisoned, including…”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Sinka, 599 P.2d 1275 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 9.95.110. A parole interview is held to determine whether the inmate should be released.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Gronquist, 429 P.3d 804 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 9.95.110, .115, .900. Instead of being released early from each of his terms of confinement on parole, Gronquist began serving each consecutive term when all that remained on the previous term was ERT.”
In re the Det. of Hovinga, 132 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is authorized to release a defendant on parole “after such convicted person has served the period of confinement fixed for him or her by the board, less time credits for good behavior and diligence in work.”
January v. Porter, 453 P.2d 876 (Wash. 1969). “In sustaining the discretionary powers of the board, the ■judiciary has simply given legal effect to the statute (RCW 9.95.110), which reads: The board of prison'terms and paroles may permit a convicted person to leave the buildings and enclosures of the penitentiary or the…”
Monohan v. Burdman, 530 P.2d 334 (Wash. 1975). “tory, or other state correctional institution, commits any infractions of the rules and regulations of the institution, the board of prison terms and paroles may revoke any order theretofore made determining the length of time such convicted person shall be imprisoned, including…”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.110(1) — 3 cases
In re the Det. of Hovinga, 132 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is authorized to release a defendant on parole “after such convicted person has served the period of confinement fixed for him or her by the board, less time credits for good behavior and diligence in work.”
In Re Det. of Hovinga, 130 P.3d 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
In re Pers. Restraint of Yates (Wash. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.